POLL: The Future of Space Exploration

Remove all ads!

What's the rush?

It took me nine months before I set foot upon this planet. I could handle a nine month journey before I step on the next one.

If I recall a TV program about Mars correctly, it is being investigated as to whether the absence of a magnetic field allows the Solar Wind (cause of the Aurora Borealis) to strip Mars of its atmosphere.

The thing is, it is believed that Mars has possessed a magnetic field in the past and will again in the future. The last time Mars' magnetic field was supposed to flip (the same way as the the Earths does every 100,000 years or so), the magnetic field was too weak to complete the process, and the field dissapeared.

The Earth is overdue a magnetic flip. If the postulated fate of Mars' once earth like atmosphere is correct and our magnetic field disappears during a future flip then we become the next red planet. This makes studying Mars' history that much more important.

----------------------------------------------

Bush's Da wants to build a Moon Station. If Bush's Da is to live to see it then it has to be built soon. But what happens if the next President doesn't need money from Bush Senior's cadre?

The scrapped plans could waste billions. A vote should be taken by the entire American people as to whether they want this money spent RIGHT NOW, as opposed a time in the future when the technology exists to carry out the construction at a fraction of the cost (the biodome experiments are still at the fiasco stage).

PS
As there is possibly a planet destroying Asteriod due in 2014, it would be a good idea to have a colony off-world, whose decendants could one day return and repopulate Planet Bush.

 

Well I am going to be a bit highstrung here. I think it is the duty of the human race to explore as much as possible, to reach for the stars and be all that we can be. But as the costs for space exploration are so immense no lone country can carry it, not even a group of countries. One reason I think that humanities only way to go is towards complete unity is that it is the only way to amass enough funds and know-how to truly challenge the stars. Long term vision here but if we want to continue to grow as a species we have to find a way to see whats out there. However that is not possible until we have solved all our petty squabbles. So I say lets go to Mars, lets ravage the asteroid belts, things exist to be used. We have been pretty bad at using things in a good way the last centuries but we are getting better and stripping the asteroids fields is a lot nicer than slaughtering technological backwards humans to get what they have which is what we have done in the past.

 

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/031224-space-attraction.htm

If they screw up this many times, and succeed only that many times, it looks like they'll be a lot more times between actually sending people up there.

 

Scientists believe that the Earth's magnetic field is due to fluidic behavior in the planet's mantle and core.

Mars has almost no field and, from what I have read, the core of Mars has solidified and gone dead. To bring up a magnetic field, we would have to restart the planet somehow.

Remember what when you look at the NASA pictures of Mars, you are seeing Earth's future. This planet will someday be dead.

 

I hate to be the naysayer here, but...this awe-inspiring project would cost hundreds of billions of dollars. There are much better uses of our money - military, health care, welfare, tax cuts, deficit reduction, debt relief, whatever. Hey, if you insist on spending the cash on space stuff, fine - just invest the money better. We don't need to build more infrastructure in space - we need to find cheaper ways to transport that infrastructure into space. If we scrapped the shuttle and the space station, and invested that money in basic rocketry research, maybe a Mars trip could become truly cost-effective.

And then, Manus, we start strip-mining! Bwa ha ha!

 

The rush is to be able to get there alive. Once you leave for Mars, you lose the benefit of the aforementioned magnetic field, which indeed offers some protection against radiation. The reason they haven't send people to Mars is not related to cost for fuel, food or such things. The fact is they don't know how to protect a human being from the radiation during the trip there. The only "solution" would make the spacecraft way to heavy to be used.

The reason astronauts can stay so long in space stations is because of this magnetic field, otherwise they would have been killed by the radiation of the sun a long time ago. I suppose the reason they weren't killed by going to the moon is that I suppose they went to it when it was "hiding" behind the earth, because at the side of earth that is turned away of the sun, the magnetic field covers a much larger area of space then on the other end (towards the sun).

And this coupled with the fact of being cheaper is why they send robots to Mars instead of Humans.

 

@ Meatdog

You are right on all your points. I wasn't suggesting that three days is the optimal time frame to get to Mars. I was using the numbers as a means of showing why a spacestation on the moon or in orbit around the moon would be favorable to taking off from earth. That having been said - you're absolutely right. Just because you bring 1,000 times the amount of fuel, it doesn't mean you can burn it 1,000 times as fast and get there in three days. I was just trying to show that we need a takeoff point away from earth to do this.

 

I completely agree with you there then. Another nice feature of a base on the moon for take-off is that you could use the natural speed of the moon to give you an initial push. This would work great because of the absence of an atmosphere (so absence of friction) and a much lower gravity.

 

Why should humans go to Mars?

Because it's there. Because we can. I don't know about the rest of you, but I think space is the next great frontier. The explorers of Europe did it over 500 years ago...They jumped in boats, sailed west in search of new lands. Because they wanted to see what they could find.

Sir Edmund Hillary climbed Mt Everest. Why? Because it was there.

Mars is there. No more explanation is needed.

 

I think that we should continue to shoot for the stars. I just do.

If there was a forum where a guy with no knowledge in planetary phenomenon or nuclear physics could post without feeling stupid, I would explain my thoughts in more detail.

 

@ Sir Bel
If you're referring to Columbus, I'm at the regret to tell you that he actually sailed out to find lands that were already known, namely India and the far East. The discovery of new lands was just an accident. Just as the discovery of South America was the accident of some drunken captain wanting to reach North America. (although a few people think he set out on purpose to find if there was something under North America).

But concerning your views of space travel, I totally agree. It is there, so we must go, it's our nature and our fate.

@ Jaguar
Aren't these boards suited for that?

 

@Meatdog

I suppose, but everyone here sounds so intelligent talking about space exploration, and I only know the basics.

 

Meatdog - I know what he was looking for, but he dared to do what noone (at least in their mind) had done before - travel west, into the unknown, along an uncharted route. Think about it...At least with Mars, we know where it is and how to get there.

 

Well, just change the Columbus reference to Erik the Red, and you've got it. There have been Viking settlements found in Canada - technically, they were the first Europeans in the Americas, although Columbus typically gets the credit.

 

Yes, yes...Erik the Red. I know about him too...But CC is the well known one. Geez! Who did what is not the point...The important point is that it was done.

Mars. Go now. Or at least in 10-15 years.

 

Aye, it was done, and more often than not was folowed by a wake of destruction. Columbus epitomizes this, and for what? Spice? Gold?

We can only make each mistake once, after that it is too late, the damage is done.

 

To launch ships from the moon you need a huge number of people, buildings and a lot of infrastructure to be in place on the planet.

To accomodate this you will need a large reliable power source. A compact nuclear power souce is the obvious choice.

If the rocket carrying the fissionable material blows up in the stratosphere then we get a 'wake of destruction' as Manus said.

When the risk of harm to the individual comes this close to home, do those in favour of a Moonbase still say yes?

 

Since I started this topic, I figure that I better weigh in.

We must go to space, because we can. If we faint away from this challenge it will be a failure for all of humanity. I would be nice to think that the billions that the program will cost would be spent to end world hunger, but they won't. The dollars simply won't be there, if that is the objective...it is human nature.

The goal of a base on the Moon and manned flight to Mars would be an accomplishment for all of humanity, that would somehow indirectly benefit all of mankind. The confidence that would come would be similar to the statement "If we can put men on Mars, maybe we can end all hunger in the world". Emboldened, we would face anew the challenges on this planet, while we continued to stretch our reach into the Solar System. If we turn aside from this challenge, we will likewise find ourselves daunted by the other challenges we face.

It doesn't matter if we realize no economic gains from this venture, we don't have to strip mine the planets (easy Manus ), we don't need to establish a Federation of Planets...we just need to do it because we can . The gains that will come from such a program will be greater than anything that could be measured or imagined.

On to Mars!

(as a further impetus, there are rumors that the Islamic Republic of Mars has significant stockpiles of WMD)

 

My problem with Bush's plan is that now is not the right time. With massive deficits and states cutting education and medicaid funding, this is not the time for such programs. Once we are more stable and funding is there, lets go. Until then, I want my kid to go to a good school, which if funding keeps on getting cut won't happen since i can't afford private school.